Aboriginal – Page 24

Legislation considered: Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c 17; Designation of Constitutional Decision Makers Regulation, AR 69/2006

The new single Alberta Energy Regulator under the Responsible Energy Development Act, has been proclaimed in force in part (OC 163/2013) on June 4, 2013 to be effective June 17, 2013. Section 21 of that Act, in force on June 17, 2013, states that the Alberta Energy Regulator has no jurisdiction to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation:

Crown consultation with aboriginal peoples

21. The Regulator has no jurisdiction with respect to assessing the adequacy of Crown consultation associated with the rights of aboriginal peoples as recognized and affirmed under Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Role of the “Noble Savage” in Environmental Social Activism

By Kathleen Mahoney

On May 13, 2013

In Aboriginal, Environmental, Oil & Gas

PDF version: The Role of the “Noble Savage” in Environmental Social Activism

Context of discussion: Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project

This blog is to discuss what I call the “The Role of the Noble Savage” in the pursuit of environmental justice through social activism. I will use the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project to provide context.

Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 15, 2013

In Aboriginal, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF version: Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases

Cases considered: R v Mack, 2012 ABCA 42, leave to appeal granted, April 11, 2013 (SCC); Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v Joint Review Panel, 2012 ABCA 352, leave to appeal dismissed April 11, 2013 (SCC); Fitzpatrick v Alberta College of Physical Therapists, 2012 ABCA 207, leave to appeal dismissed April 11, 2013 (SCC)

On April 11, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down leave to appeal decisions in three cases from Alberta.

The Manitoba Métis Case and the Honour of the Crown

By Nigel Bankes

On April 9, 2013

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Property

PDF version: The Manitoba Métis Case and the Honour of the Crown

Case commented on: Manitoba Métis Federation Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14

In its historic decision on the constitutional rights of the Manitoba Métis, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision rendered by the Chief Justice and Justice Karakatsanis (Rothstein and Moldaver JJ dissenting), concluded that section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (reprinted in RSC 1985, App. II, No. 11) expresses a constitutional obligation to the Métis people of Manitoba to provide Métis children with allotments of land. The majority held that the obligation did not impose a fiduciary or trust duty on the Crown but that it did engage “the honour of the Crown.” The majority held that the Crown failed to live up to the terms of that engagement and that the Métis were accordingly entitled to a declaration to that effect. The claim for declaratory relief in relation to the honour of the Crown was not barred by the law of limitations or the equitable doctrine of laches.

The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?

By Nigel Bankes

On January 16, 2013

In Aboriginal

PDF version: The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?

Decision commented on: Cooper and Boucher v Ganter and HMQA, 2012 ABQB 695.

I don’t actually know if this is a case of competing normative orders but it sure looks like it. More formally and abstractly this decision confirms that a claimant cannot avoid the six month limitation rule for judicial review proceedings by commencing an action by way of a statement of claim.

Category: Aboriginal Page 24 of 32

Alberta Energy Regulator: Split Jurisdiction Implications for Crown Consultation?

The Role of the “Noble Savage” in Environmental Social Activism

Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases

The Manitoba Métis Case and the Honour of the Crown

The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?